Occup Environ Med

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

The most recent version of this article was published on 1 June 2008

Occup Environ Med. Published Online First: 10 October 2007. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.035808
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
oem.2007.035808v1
65/6/392    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verger, P.
Right arrow Articles by Souville, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verger, P.
Right arrow Articles by Souville, M.

Original Article

Inequities in reporting asbestos-related lung cancer: influence of smoking stigma and physician's specialty, workload, and role perception

Pierre Verger 1*, Sandrine Arnaud 2, Stephanie Ferrer 2, Gwenaelle Iarmarcovai 2, Marie-Laure Saliba 2, Alain Viau 2 and Marc Souville 3

1 Southeastern Health Regional Observatory, INSERM UMR 379, France
2 Southeastern Health Regional Observatory, France
3 Universite de Provence, UFR Psychologie, Sciences de l'Education, France

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: verger{at}marseille.inserm.fr.

Accepted 28 September 2007


*   Abstract

Objectives: To study physician barriers to workers’ compensation claims for asbestos-related cancers, focusing on smokers’ stigma and physicians’ speciality and role perception. Methods: Cross-sectional telephone study of 486 randomly-selected physicians: general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists in southeastern France. Standardised questionnaires explored their behaviour, attitudes and practices in the field of occupational health and their responses to a case-vignette about a lung cancer patient with long-term occupational asbestos exposure. Randomised subgroups of GPs and pulmonologists heard alternative versions varying only in the worker’s smoking status. We studied factors associated with the recommendation that the case-vignette patient file a compensation claim with simple and multiple logistic regressions. Results: The response rate was 64.4% among GPs and 62.5% among pulmonologists. Recommending the filing of an occupational disease claim was significantly associated in multiple logistic regressions with speciality (OR=4.46; 95%CI=2.38-8.37, for pulmonologists versus GPs), patient’s smoking status (OR=3.15; 95%CI=2.11-4.70, for non-smokers versus smokers), physician’s workload (OR=1.83; 95%CI= 1.17-2.88, for ≤25 consultations per day versus >25), and role perception (OR=2.00; 95%CI=1.22-3.27, for those who considered completing occupational disease medical certificates to be part of their role versus those who did not). Conclusions: The results of this French study appear applicable to various countries and contexts. To make physicians and especially GPs more aware of occupational health and smoking stigma, officials and educators must give these topics higher priority during initial training and continuing medical education. Tools and equipment that take time constraints into account should be developed and disseminated to help physicians manage occupational diseases.


Keywords: Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Occupational diseases, Physicians, Stigmatization, Workers' Compensation







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.